User talk:TimeMaster/Lepsina
Hmm... this is oddly compelling. MyOwnBadSelf (talk · ) 02:10, October 5, 2017 (UTC) /ʃ/ is ⟨x⟩? :P 77topaz (talk) 04:36, October 5, 2017 (UTC) :That's an ugly esperantism though :o --OuWTB 09:26, October 5, 2017 (UTC) :Yeah, cuz ʃ is ugly and too similar to S, and I don't think a diacritic or digraph emphasizes the independence of the sounds enough (though to be fair, many ʃ in English are from sj (in IPA)), and x needs a use. I did want to use ezh for the voiced version instead of q, an earlier suggestion, but then not sure what to use q for. Maybe the German ch in loch or huge? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:40, October 5, 2017 (UTC) ::/náxon/ vs /nátiv/ highly hypocritical if you think /fotografi/ and /fotograf/ are justifiable :o --OuWTB 14:46, October 5, 2017 (UTC) :::Indeed. But, the x is like a fallen t, which helps. :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:20, October 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::Alternatively, you could use "f", cuz that's the same as "t" too; and then use "ɟ" for "f" :o --OuWTB 16:35, October 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::X needs to be used though. Otherwise we'd have a useless key. If we're going to remove it why not just use a completely new alphabet. Adding eng ezh eth and thorn is already a stretch, though I think we don't actually NEED eng, it's just that the trigraph "ngg" (like in Éngglix) looks stupid and would be rather common. @Esperantism: It's not though, unless you consider a lot Turkish to also be an Esperantism. Esperanto uses ugly circumflexes while dropping other letters while I use substitute current useless redundant letters like q and x with their own unique sounds. @Fotografi and Fotograf: Do you think Fótografi and Fótograf would be better? I was dropping all accents in unstressed syllables as I want to minimize use of accents without having to introduce double letters, but that rule could be removed. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:51, October 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::@Oos: ɟ is a palatal consonant though. @TM: This is just spelling reform, right? What about your whole 'English is sexist' thing? MyOwnBadSelf (talk · ) 05:15, October 7, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Fully aware of that. I'm a linguist and it's native to Limburgish. If that's the point you want to make: y is a rounded closed front vowel, x is a voiceless velar fricative, c is a voiceless palatal plosive etc. Writing English in IPA is not standardization as dialects/speakers vary. --OuWTB 07:19, October 7, 2017 (UTC) ::::::I believe English is not very sexist. It just needs to remove a few words like actress and waitress from the language. German, French, and Esperanto (holy shit. I HATE this. Why can't it have the base word be neutral (like "parent"), and then have symmetrical endings make "father" and "mother"? Instead father is the base and mother is a suffix to father. Incredibly sexist. There are some proposals with some use to fix this, but in all cases a few female versions survive as suffixes of male forms, I think typically patrino/patro for mother/father and virino/viro for cow/bull, which is unacceptable. Must be patro/patrino/patrico for parent/mother/father, no exceptions. Though the language sucks for other reasons too, mainly with being ugly. For example, having a plural that doesn't need to exist but it also very ugly. "oi" is ugly.) are much more sexist, among others. I would support merging he and she though in English, to they. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:51, October 7, 2017 (UTC) :::::::@Oos: The difference is that ɟ is not part of the Latin alphabet. @TM: Does your spelling reform merge he and she? MyOwnBadSelf (talk · ) 00:37, October 19, 2017 (UTC) :::::::No, it's just a spelling reform. I'm saying that I personally support elimination of he and she and full replacement with singular they. Hopefully that would lead to the abolition of a special verb form for it as well, as in the Norfolk dialect. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 04:27, October 19, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::@MOBS: It is, just as þ is. --OuWTB 14:03, October 21, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::But "þ" is used in Icelandic, while as far as I can tell there aren't any existing languages which use "ɟ" in their orthography. 77topaz (talk) 21:38, October 21, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::You patronizing Oos though? :o —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:49, October 22, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::I agree with Topaz. MyOwnBadSelf (talk · ) 22:12, October 22, 2017 (UTC) Splitting pane - pain Splitting pane - pain would make the nation-national more easier: way = wei; national = nä^synyl; nation = næ^syn :o south=sauþ; southern = saðyrn also pretty clear. --OuWTB 13:04, March 2, 2018 (UTC) :We could also introduce the vain - vane - vein split entirely :P "væin" "væn" "vein". Omg, this is so kjút :3 --OuWTB 13:08, March 2, 2018 (UTC) ::With "vine" being written "vain" we got a lot of difþongz kjútifaid :3 --OuWTB 13:08, March 2, 2018 (UTC) Maybe - isn't it very rare to not merge them though? We should try to make it as easy and possible and with that it would be hard to tell which to write when you hear something (but also for w/wh and horse/hoarse too for most speakers). I prefer nashonal/naishon and souþ/suððern. Are you pro or contra maintaining the Germanic double letter system in this new system I'm adapting? How do you propose to write pine, pin, piner, and pinner in my system? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:10, March 2, 2018 (UTC) The Germanic double letter is used unsystematically in English though. It would require you to write "kit" as "kitt", but using accents makes double-writing unnecessary. "wrait" (cuz it still separate in Scots), "pain", "pin", "painyr", "pinyr" :o --OuWTB 13:12, March 2, 2018 (UTC) I meant in this new system of mine, not yours, given that you DO use the Germanic double letter in non-terminal syllables. pien/pin/piener/pinner, pien/pin/pienr/pinr, pine/pin/piner/pinner, pien/pin/piener/piner, pin/pinn/piner/pinner, pien/pin/piner/pinner. I just meant in syllables before the last for the double letter. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:16, March 2, 2018 (UTC) Jú šud ydžast jór sistym sou jú wrait it igzäktli ðy seim äz main ðou :o --OuWTB 13:23, March 2, 2018 (UTC) I don't really like all the diacritics ðo. If you did use my system, which of pien/pin/piener/pinner, pien/pin/pienr/pinr, pine/pin/piner/pinner, pien/pin/piener/piner, pin/pinn/piner/pinner, pien/pin/piner/pinner do you prefer and why? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:36, March 2, 2018 (UTC) pin/pinn cuz it's cutely swedish :3 Also, accents very germaniclike so they cute :o --OuWTB 13:37, March 2, 2018 (UTC) North Germanic maybe. Not bad but I think we are/were both overusing them. What's your second choice after pin/pinn? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:58, March 2, 2018 (UTC) Icelandic* Danish/Norwegian/Swedish use consonant gemination cuz its phonemic: pin vs. pinn = /pi:n/ vs /pin:/; unlike Old Norse which had pín vs. pin vs. pinn vs. pínn /pi:n - pin - pin: - pi:n:/; English/German only have /pi:n/ vs /pin/ (although more lax); Dutch lacks phonemic vowel length distinction. --OuWTB 14:19, March 2, 2018 (UTC)